Net(work) Neutrality prevents ISPs from trying to control what you can see after you've already paid them good money to use their service freely. Net(work) Neutrality will prevent the government from trying to step in later, when ISPs are shaping content all the live-long day, and you can only see the new sites THEY like, and only read blogs THEY approve of. If someone has to step in, what would you prefer? Businesses that only want to innovate another twenty dollars per month out of your wallet deciding how you can use the internet? Or, as much as I hate to say it, the government stepping in and telling them that "They can not and will not decide how their customers can use the internet."

With Respect, most of the people in Washington have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. I am a Software Engineer, and have been working on the web for about 10 years at this point. The "nuts and bolts" of how the internet work will protect your freedom of speech on their own AS LONG AS the ISPs are not allowed to tamper with your service. What if FedEx/UPS/USPS/whoever tampered with your mail? Or if the police told Delivery Drivers from certain pizza places that they could only driver 20mph to get to their destinations, and let others go unrestricted? If you block Net(work) Neutrality, then you open to door for private citizens with questionable motives who weren't elected by anyone to control what you and your family can see, and that's as scary as it gets on this issue.

Is it true that we are having "HOLIDAY TREES" in the White House this CHRISTMAS? What are WE THE PEOPLE going to do about that?

According to Mr. Lloyd, he is suggesting that syndicated "talk radio" shows (i.e., those that are critical of Mr. Obama and his policies) are not reflective of "local" attitudes and are not "diverse" enough. To cure those ills, Mr. Lloyd proposes to tax these "talk radio" programs at 100% of their operating expenses, such tax money to be distributed to "local'" and "diverse" radio stations.

Last I heard, people who didn't want to listen to Rush, or Hannity, or Levin, or Laura Ingraham, or any of the others, could always change the the channel, or turn off the radio. If people wanted to hear guys like Al Franken, they could have listened to Air America, or Bill Maher, Alec Baldwin, Barbara Striesand, George Clooney, the old hens on the View, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN or MSNBC. They could get their news from the New York Times, or the L.A. Times or the Washington Post, or Newsweek.

I'm sick of hearing that the left doesn't get equal time in the media. If it weren't for conservative talk radio and Fox News, we wouldn't know a fraction of what's been going on in Washington. We would know anything about Mr. Obama's "czars" like Mr. Jennings, who thinks the North American Man-Boy LOve Association is a good thing. Or like Mr. Cass Sunstein, who thinks animals should have the right to sue human beings. Or like Mr. Van Jones, the self avowed communist, who doesn't like Republicans very much.

We wouldn't have know about the adventures of ACORN and its 'entreprenurial' spirit and inventiveness when it comes to importing illegal alien children for purposes of prostitution. And Charlie Gibson says, "what problem with ACORN"?

The White House wants to get even with Fox News and punish them. Why? Because they uncover and publish these things that the other "news" media will not cover because of their slobbering love affair with Mr. Obama.

In 1970 I swore to protect and defend our constitution from all enemies, including domestic ones and I am willing to do so again. Who else out there is?